bitbydeath
Gold Member
Do we really need to go beyond 60FPS?
Graphics and gameplay is more important than frames IMO.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PS5 Pro Specs Leak are Real, Releasing Holiday 2024(Insider Gaming)
- Thread starter jm89
- Start date
Graphics and gameplay is more important than frames IMO.
Ashamam
Member
HDMI 2.1 market penetration isn't high enough to prioritise imho. Maybe a bit more so on the enthusiast side, but mass market 4k/60 is more realistic. Thats not to say 4K/120 isn't a draw for the PS5 pro, but I don't think its as important as locked 4K/60. (reconstructed PSSR 4K ofc.)
Last edited:
SonGoku
Member
With how little info we have Im not putting my money on any node be it 6nm n5 or n4. That said you make it sound like N4 is some new advanced node compared to 5nm when its just a a process optimization/refinement of N5 and supposedly N4 also reduces the number of masks and process complexity enabling TSMC to produce N4 at a lower cost than N5 per wafer.
Of course demand plays a role as well so if there's more production capability available for N5 Sony might go that route. My intention is merely to point out they are the same node and should not have a big gap in price like say 3nm
Care to elaborate on this
Last edited:
Mr.Phoenix
Member
Who cares how advanced the node is? The only thing that matters is price. And no, N4 is not cheaper than N5.
PaintTinJr
Member
Could be better, is how I would put it, as I'm still not totally convinced trying to discretely quantize a continuous complexly generated 30bit(HDR) colour output with integer data types is a better fit to avoid banding and mitigate noise compared to a highly dynamic precision encoding of floating point numbers.
But I am intrigued to see what they do with it on the Pro and how PSSR will work.
Last edited:
asdasdasdbb
Member
It is cheaper by a little bit because of the density boost.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
We already get 60FPS in 99.9% of games, we don’t need more. PS5 Pro needs to focus on graphics.
Ashamam
Member
What we have is sub 4k (sometimes very sub) and sub 60 (sometimes very sub). A 4K image that actually looks like 4K and a locked 60 with matching frame pacing would be a big upgrade in many peoples eyes, mine included.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Sub 60 is a minuscule amount of games that you could count on 1 hand.
SegaSnatcher
Member
I'm literally talking about games better maintaining 60fps.
SegaSnatcher
Member
You are being absolutely dishonest or simply ignorant to actual performance in many games. There are many games that could use a boost to better hit 60fps.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
That’s almost non-existent this gen.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Please name 6.
SegaSnatcher
Member
Alan Wake 2
Cyberpunk 2077
Elden Ring in any PS5 mode.
Final Fantasy XVI
Genshin Impact
Lords of Fallen
Lord of the Rings:Gollum
Remnant 2
RE4 Remake
Robocop: Rogue City
SegaSnatcher
Member
At $599 it will push beyond it's weight, but they are clearly holding back for PS6.
I really wanted to see 40fps quality modes with unlocked frame rate come closer to 60fps and then rely on VRR to prevent stutter.
dano1
A Sheep
I’m hoping every game is locked 60. In Cerny I trust
Either way best console by far!
Perrott
Member
And in first-party territory, these games can also dip below their 60fps target down to either the low or mid 50s during demanding scenes:
- Death Stranding Director's Cut (Quality Mode)
- Gran Turismo 7 (Quality Mode)
- Helldivers 2 (Performance Mode)
- Returnal
- The Last Of Us Part I (Performance Mode)
Lagspike_exe
Member
Nothing prevents them from doing so.
With exception of 'maybe' Helldivers 2 - none of those are CPU limited.
Like the list above - majority of these are not CPU limited either - I mean I get the knee jerk reaction to 'CPU limited' on consoles since we've literally had that problem for the past 5 generations - but current-gen just isn't. Or at least - relative to every other gen before it - the problem is minimal.
Perrott
Member
That's... the point.
Neither I nor
SegaSnatcher
were arguing that the games in our lists were CPU limited. We were just responding to a poster who asked for examples of games that dropped below their 60fps target, and provided a variety of examples with varying degrees of severity - most of which I do expect to be cleared by either the so-called Ultra Boost Mode or bespoke PS5 Pro patches.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
Highly unlikely IMO. Unlike Xbox, PlayStation were there at the inception of VRR and it was never meant to be used in the way Xbox presents it as a frame-rate catcher for poorly optimised games at classic fixed refresh rates. It is there for developers to pick new fixed frame-rates like 40fps, and as most games are either 30fps or 60fps to work on 99.9% of all the HD/4K TVs without VRR support, only options to provide higher frame-rates than 30fps with better visuals than 60fps will be important to them making a console that isn't just a PC in a box under the TV IMO.
Last edited:
digdug2
Member
Perhaps it's because there isn't much by way of documentation, but I haven't seen anything saying that 48-60fps is strictly hardware based. But then again, I could be absolutely wrong.
Ok clear - I read one of SegaSnatcher's post as alluding to CPU limitations being the cause but maybe I misread that.
But indeed - most of those games should improve even without any bespoke patches. What's not being talked about enough IMO is that legacy-patches are possible as well so many games on that list could get PSSR boost as well without a full on PS5 Pro patch, and the likes of Robocop etc. would really benefit from no longer being limited by FSR...
They could offer 120hz container default (just like they do default HDR container), which would increase the range for 60fps games. But I don't see them ever doing LFC by default. That's a hack that requires taking swap-chain control away from the developer - and Sony historically avoided such restrictions. Sometimes for the worse, but in this particular case I actually agree with their approach.
To be fair, virtually every TV released in last 20 years has native 50hz refresh too - if that was ever a real concern for platform holders they could have improved the situation over a decade before VRR became a thing. But I just don't think any of them actually cared - VRR was a bandwagon to latch on mostly for the buzz-word than any genuine effort to improve player experiences.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
Only in Euro. 50Hz isn't part of the NTSC standard at all, meaning all the HD ready screens in two of the three largest markets for games would have zero guarantee of TVs meeting that 50Hz minimum spec, and that's not even covering the colour spec difference. So I wouldn't say that was possible especial when you add in the transition from regional SD colour gamut, to HD colour gamut to UHD colour gamut. VRR capable consoles and TVs are the first time developers could be assured the 50Hz would definitely be universally available on relevant TVs
50hz was part of HDTV standard, basically all flat-panels support it natively, and most other panels manufactured since 2003 at least. Also it's just a refresh rate in HD - color space differences were left behind once we left SD.
I've bought panels in NTSC regions back in 2005 that natively played back 50hz content. Which is quite unlike VRR, 120hz, or even regular 4k - none of which are guaranteed to work on a random display in active use today. The problem is that console-manufacturers refused to support the refresh rate (outside of select media/BC cases, and even that was inconsistent). Hell I could also throw in the fact 100hz is a better target than 120hz for high-framerate players without VRR display, but fair enough - hw support for that is about the same as 120hz, so at least here the argument isn't as clear-cut.
But there's nothing universal about targeting a few % of the market (which is how VRR has been for most of last decade) - it was very special case that you knew would only apply to select few users. Even today VRR coverage is still spotty at best, and people don't buy TVs as often as they do phones.
What's also fun is considering that non-standard refresh rates are possible on a lot of TVs out there - but admittedly I don't know how wide-spread support for that is.
Ie. I can set custom-refresh anywhere between 40-60 without a problem on 2018 LG C8 - meaning 'true' 40hz@4k also works on the set with PC games - but on a console I can only use it via 120hz which limits it to 1080p on that particular display.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
Full HD, yes, but not HD-Ready which was the vast majority of Plasma and small LCD screens sold at the start of the HD boom; especially the Plasmas that didn't even come as standard with a TV tuner and the tuners were region specific, so even if the Panel was 50Hz capable the interface for components was either PAL60 or NTSC.
Lots of high-end manufactured HD ready screens sold by Sony, Samsung, etc did do everything, but as these were premium priced, targeting a 50Hz mode outside of Euro would have never made it onto a list for Sony and PlayStation 3 or 4.
It's the reason the PS2 had such little component video support by software in the previous gen, and why 99.9% of PAL territory cube titles completely ignored the digital interface output on original cubes.
I agree, which is why VRR is a complete waste of time until PS6 or PS6 Pro.
Zathalus
Member
What? VRR was pioneered by Nvidia, Microsoft offered VRR (Freesync) support way before PlayStation, and the use case for VRR is exactly as the acronym implies, tear free visuals at variable refresh rates. 40fps locks don’t require a VRR TV, they just require a TV that 40 fps can divide into, such as 120fps sets. No fixed frame-rates require any sort of adaptive sync technology as long as the selected frame rate divides neatly into the max refresh rate of the TV or monitor.
MarkMe2525
Gold Member
I imagine GT7 will look sick in VR mode, assuming the PSSR works well with VR content. I almost bit the bullet and got myself a PS5 multiple times, yet always held off with intentions to jump in with the "pro" model. I hope it turns out well and stays under $600
Imtjnotu
Member
Experiencing GT7 now in vr is something special. It's wild looking around inside a car.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I wish we could get numbers for the PS Portal. Sometimes it feels like it can see easily over 1 million units WW a year.
I wouldn't bet on a generic upscaler/TAA to work well in VR (I've seen some genuinely horrible examples - like Doom VR which was borderline unplayable - but really most Unreal titles that used TAA were pretty poor as well). On the plus side - it can be tuned to get better/good results - but it has to be done for VR specific usecase, you can't just use the AA that looked good on a flat-screen and expect miracles.
I'm not sure I'd agree there. During PS2 gen sure - but in 2006, 720/1080i was a mess especially on PS3 (panels and console support both) and that didn't stop them from supporting both. And 50hz was afaik more ubiquitous than 1080i/p (I've used HD-ready 720p Plasma panels that supported it just fine).
In PS4 era it was already a non-issue - Sony (and MS for that matter) both dropped 720p support alltogether, meaning they were confident console users were mostly on FHD compatible displays by then, and as you note those all supported 50hz refresh too.
True - also given all the weird issues some panels still had with VRR until recently.
PaintTinJr
Member
That's slightly more nuanced will panels and is the very reason why PS3 didn't abandon composite as its default cable option in the box.
All HD ready TVs needed only support PAL or NTSC (or NTSC-J) -or SECAM - at 720p/1080i, and at their standard refresh 60 or 50 and at their respective encoding resolution of 480 or 576 lines for their standard at SD colour, and many Plasmas/LCD TVs didn't even support more than SD inputs like a friend's 21" Sharp Aquos, meaning they didn't even have HD ready support, so a guarantee of 50Hz outside of Europe just wasn't there.
PS4/X1 changed things by abandoning SD and HD-Ready cable inputs by making hdmi the only cable, but again, mandatory support for HD Ready TVs with 50 or 60Hz 720p/1080i. meaning no requirement for HD colour spec and no requirement for Full HD 1080p, meant that even at that stage 50hz couldn't have guaranteed support outside of Europe, and AFAIK, but haven't tested it, PS5 and Series also have the same situation as PS4/X1, so there's still no requirement for 1080p or HD colour or a TV that can perform beyond the region specific specs of HD ready, that doesn't guarantee 50Hz beyond Europe.
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
That's because you're fundamentally misunderstanding sales reporting, which isn't entirely your fault.
It's often reported that it is the highest selling peripheral by revenue.
The thing costs 200 dollars, it's nearly 3x the price of a Dual Sense controller. The PS5 comes with a Dual Sense controller, so only a fraction of people are buying a second controller or replacement controller at any given time, it also has competition from the Dual Sense Edge and other 3rd party controllers.
What impacts this even more is that sometimes the Dual Sense controllers are available on sale for about 50-ish dollars, bringing that ratio closer to 4:1.
All of which isn't to suggest that the Portal isn't selling well, but rather we should be cautious in making grand assumptions about its sales, very similarly to that of the Steam Deck which hovers near the top of sales charts by revenue on Steam, but it also far more expensive per unit than software titles.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
All games submitted for cert to Sony must have a PS5 Pro patch as of a week ago
SenkiDala
Member
If everything is at least 60fps I agree. 30fps in 2024 is a bit rough... Acceptable in some kind of games but a minimum of 60fps in every games would be awesome.
Do we have any idea of the price ? 499$/549€ for the PS5 "basic" that it means 599$/649€ ? I hope it won't be more than that because it is already high. Best would be to drop 100$€ on the base PS5 to put the Pro version at the price of the "now price" of the PS5 but I doubt they'll do that... it's still selling well.
More than 599 would be hard to sell though.
Do we have any idea of the price ? 499$/549€ for the PS5 "basic" that it means 599$/649€ ? I hope it won't be more than that because it is already high. Best would be to drop 100$€ on the base PS5 to put the Pro version at the price of the "now price" of the PS5 but I doubt they'll do that... it's still selling well.
More than 599 would be hard to sell though.
i think 599 is a hard sell imo 550 tops for me but i will pay 599 if it is that
THE:MILKMAN
Member
Sony really doing a copy/paste of the PS4 Pro. For that it was from mid-August of 2016.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
$599 could very well be in play here and that is totally a guess.
When the first talk of the Pro was making its rounds over a year ago it was going to be higher than that and likely why Sony didn't push it last year
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Somewhere between $499 and $599.
$499 is possible because it could be sold at a loss. Sony will make it back on software.
I can’t see it going any higher than $599.
Lagspike_exe
Member
Any ideas on older games that getting patches?
mayham2199
Member
I'd be surprised to see it lower than $599 honestly.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Sadly no clue
sncvsrtoip
Member
reprojection even good like dlss doesnt work best in racing games
SenkiDala
Member
I miss the time when console prices went down pretty fast...
Dunno about the US but in France (at that time there wasn't euros but just "Francs") prices went down fast, 2099 francs for the ps1 day one (september 1995), it had many price drops until I bought it in november 1997 for FFVII, it was then sold at 1290 francs, after it went down to 790...
Now in 202X prices don't drop. The Switch is still at the same price, not 1€$ of price drop, same goes for the PS5 and even the XSX/S, in fact for us in Europe the prices even rose... That's quite surprising for the XSX/S, the guys are like "we are not selling the console... mmmhh... what to do... mmhhh what a mystery... OH! LET'S RISE THE PRICE !!!".
Dunno about the US but in France (at that time there wasn't euros but just "Francs") prices went down fast, 2099 francs for the ps1 day one (september 1995), it had many price drops until I bought it in november 1997 for FFVII, it was then sold at 1290 francs, after it went down to 790...
Now in 202X prices don't drop. The Switch is still at the same price, not 1€$ of price drop, same goes for the PS5 and even the XSX/S, in fact for us in Europe the prices even rose... That's quite surprising for the XSX/S, the guys are like "we are not selling the console... mmmhh... what to do... mmhhh what a mystery... OH! LET'S RISE THE PRICE !!!".
Sony actually wanted to count it as a new hardware unit instead of an accessory & we would have gotten numbers but I guess it had to be counted as an accessory since it's not it's own platform.
cozomel
Member
No, Sony will not match or better that unless we all start asking for it and nobody is really asking for it. Heck most people don't even really know/understand what it is. So we all need to start asking for it from Sony from here on out, relentlessly until they give it to us. Please people, lets fight for what should be common, heck the Xbox has had it since day 1!
Lionel Richie
Member
To be fair, this a dedicated gaming device that's a (likely overpriced) midgen refresh aimed at the tech autists, it should be able to do what is common on the PC. At this point I'm really struggling to see the point of it.